We’ve now seen half of the 32 teams that will be contesting this tournament, and whilst we haven’t yet sampled the three most exciting sides – Holland, Brazil and Spain – it is undeniable that Germany have been by far the most impressive so far.

The starting XIs

Germany lined up as predicted – with an attacking band of three behind Miroslav Klose. In defence Philip Lahm started in the right-back role he’s become used to at Bayern this season, whilst his club teammate Holger Badstuber came in on the left.

Australia sprung a slight surprise in their starting line-up, as they fielded no conventional striker. Instead they played a loose 4-4-2 shape with Tim Cahill just behind Richard Garcia, who tended to drift towards his usual right-wing position.

German brilliance

Firstly, the Germans were fantastic. The technical quality of individuals was remarkable – almost every outfield player comfortable on the ball. Bastian Schweinsteiger and Sami Khedira passed the ball quickly and intelligently from the centre of midfield, whilst the timing of Lukas Podolski and Thomas Muller’s runs was exceptional. Philip Lahm provided a constant outlet on the right-hand side and Miroslav Klose’s movement upfront dragged the two Australian centre-backs around all game. Most impressive of all was Mesut Ozil, who picked up the ball in a variety of positions, but invariably ended up playing it into a dangerous area.

One has to question the tactics of Pim Verbeek, however. His decision to omit Josh Kennedy, their usual striker, hinted that he would try and pack the midfield with six players, or leave Cahill on his own upfront and get midfield runners supporting him. Instead, the reason Verbeek selected that XI was because he wanted intense pressing from the front of the pitch, with each Australian working hard to close down the Germany players, even when the centre-backs received the ball from Manuel Neuer on the edge of their own area.

The idea was to stop Germany building from the back, but their back four were relatively comfortable even when subjected to pressure from Australia’s forwards and wingers, with Lahm and Arne Freidrich in particular happy to take a touch and play a simple pass sideways, and Germany managed to play their way out of the back quite easily.

Germany's pressing from the front often left Ozil (in red) in space

Not only was the pressing unsuccessful in forcing the German defence into mistakes, it also caused problems further back, in five separate ways.

Why Australia’s pressing failed

Firstly, if you ask your forwards to close down, you need your midfielders to do the same, to prevent an easy ball into midfield. The knock-on effect of this is that your defence then has to play a high line, to prevent players between the lines getting too much time on the ball. Therefore, Lucas Neill and Craig Moore were playing an extremely high defensive line against pacey players like Klose, Podolski and Muller, and it was so easy for Germany to knock the ball through the Australian backline to their forwards rushing onto the ball.

Secondly (on a related note), with Germany playing two direct wingers and three players capable of playing a defence-splitting pass, the high line of the Australian defence meant that the angle of the through-ball between the centre-backs and full-backs, towards an onrushing winger, was very easy. This is an extremely popular ball in modern football (at Barcelona, for example – Inter’s deep line against them in the second leg of their Champions League semi-final made it an impossible pass to play) and Muller and Podolski thrived on it all day.

Thirdly, and most crucially, it’s difficult to press effectively if you have a numerical disadvantage in the centre of midfield, as was the case for Australia in this game. In a straight 4-4-2 v 4-4-2, it’s relatively easy as each player has a direct opponent in front of them to close down. With a 4-4-2 v 4-2-3-1, however, Australia were leaving Germany’s main playmaker with time and space on the ball. Australia’s forwards pressed the centre-backs, their wingers pressed the full-backs – but when the central midfielders did the same to Khedira and Schweinsteiger, it left Ozil free. Or, even if they didn’t press them, it was still Germany’s three creative midfielders up against Australia’s two in the centre of midfield, with the Australian wingers out of the game in a defensive sense. Ozil was allowed the ball, and used it brilliantly.

Fourthly, it “forced” Germany to move the ball swiftly from defence to attack, which played into their hands considering the good technical qualities of their midfielders and the direct nature of their wingers. They were happy to conduct lightning-quick counter-attacks, and the fact Australia were actively attempting to move up the pitch suited Germany perfectly.

After 30-35 minutes, Australia shifted to 4-3-3. This was their second half shape, that matched Germany in the centre of midfield and allowed Australia to get into the game, until Cahill's red card.

Finally, it’s simply not the way to play against Germany. “We always have trouble playing against teams that pack their defence, just as we did against Azerbaijan”, said Philip Lahm after his side could only draw with Finland last October. With this in mind, playing high up the pitch was precisely the opposite strategy of what was required.

Australia switch formation

Australia shifted to 4-3-3 for the final 15 minutes of the first half, and after being briefed on their new instructions by Verbeek at half-time, and with Brett Holman replacing the out-of-sorts Vince Grella, looked like getting more of a hold on the game in the second half. Germany no longer dominated possession because they didn’t have an extra man in the centre of midfield, with Carl Valeri dropping deep to pick up Ozil, who was less visible in the second half.

How effective it would have been in getting Australia back in the match, we shall never know, because it was game over as soon as Cahill was dismissed just before the hour.

Conclusion

Australia were poor both technically and tactically, and the loss of Cahill for the next game against Ghana (at least) is a huge blow. They lacked creativity in wide areas and a natural striker, and barely posed a goal threat aside from set-pieces.

Their lack of quality makes it difficult to judge Germany, but they did look very, very good. They retained the ball in midfield very well but also moved it forward quickly when needed, and the most impressive thing was that the players were all on the same wavelength despite the fact it is a relatively new XI.

They were not tested defensively and the two central midfielders rarely had to track any midfield runs or get tackles in, but each player was composed on the ball and understood their role well. Muller and Podolski worked hard on the flanks and Ozil was given something approaching a free role – drifting deep and to the right, and taking advantage of the fact no-one was picking him up. The next match against Ghana will be a much more rigorous test, but Germany are a fine team.

Spot on. It’s hard to pick a man of the match for Germany because they were uniformly excellent. Even though it was a rout, it was a joy to see a team performing at a very high level after a dire string of matches. I was very impressed with the midfield pairing of Schweinstieger and Khedira.

Going with no out-and-out striker was verging on the bizarre, essentially raising the white flag before the game had even begun. Would have liked to have seen Kennedy from the start. Australia were poor, but I agree, a more thoroughly thought-out tactical plan from Verbeek could have made them far more difficult to break down and at least something resembling a threat going forward. Worst managerial performance of the tournament so far?

Yeah I’d say so. Despite being a site about football tactics I try not to criticize managers too much, because it’s easy to be wise in hindsight etc etc, but I think Verbeek really blundered with this one.

Jared on June 14, 2010 at 9:35 am

Cahill has played as a striker (or forward-most player) for Australia on numerous occasions, and has also done so for Everton. Josh Kennedy would have been completely dominated by the two German centrebacks, so I don’t think this is such a big a deal as you’re making of it.

mlyons on June 14, 2010 at 12:22 pm

He didn’t really do it for Everton; during that stretch where every single striker at the club was injured a couple of seasons ago, he played behind Marouane Fellaini in the hole.

The problem with playing Cahill as the most advanced player is that one of his most valuable skills is his ability to time late runs into the box and get himself into dangerous positions unmarked. When he’s the frontman, he needs to start in the box and most of his off the ball movement is neutralized.

Doesn’t really matter now, though, I guess.

Blipp on June 14, 2010 at 12:21 pm

Well, Verbeek’s general idea of isolating the defense from the midfield wasn’t all that bad to be honest. Loew likes his side to start the build up play from central defense and if Tasci was starting alongside Mertesacker and the Australian coach had a better side at his disposal it just might have worked.

For about the first five minutes of the match it did actually. It was also appearant that the Aussies were instructed to close down Mertesacker as he is extremely poor on the ball and his passing abysmal under pressure. Tasci has a much better technique, but is error prone as well. Friedrich on the other hand is not. The Hertha BSC player certainly isn’t a worldbeater, but extremely reliable and consistent.

Once Loew and his players saw through Verbeek’s plan and the midfielders started dropping deeper to collect the ball, it was game over for Australia. I would not be surprised to see an opponent of Germany in the latter stages employing a similar approach and causing Loew some issues though.

AlexL on June 14, 2010 at 12:49 am

I was amazed that Australia attempted to press and play a really high line. Their defence is incredibly slow and the Germans were passing through the entire Australian team with two or three passes. Because their initial pressing failed, their ‘false pressing’ was made redundant for when the players got tired.

That said, the germans looked good. Ozil really impressed, but he was given the time and space to do so. You are right when you say that the acid test for this German team will be ghana. It will certainly make for interesting veiwing.

Indeed, and tired they were – the first player to come off (was it Garcia?) looked absolutely exhausted.

A bit of that JW piece I linked to makes the point that Brazil were poor away in Bolivia because they couldn’t press as well as they usually do, because of the altitude. Could that be a factor in SA?

xl on June 14, 2010 at 10:28 am

The bolivian team likes to stage their home matches in altitudes above 3000 m. – no wonder the visitor teams are exhausted after one half – i don’t think this is comparable to SA (and Durban is at sea level anyways).

PC on June 14, 2010 at 3:14 pm

Australia have been training in Johannesburg for over a week now, so if anything they should be better when they come down to sea level.

Two tight banks of four staying deep, with Kennedy up top and Cahill in support would have been far better imho.

The two lines of four could have protected Moore and Neill, and hopefully brought Germany on to them and made space for a counter.

A disastrous managerial performance you’d have to say.

NiWa on June 14, 2010 at 1:03 am

Especially considering how good Ghana’s defensive midfielders looked. Can’t wait and hope both teams have 6 by then ;=)

shingai on June 14, 2010 at 1:38 am

If both sides have 6 by then, it won’t be much of an acid test. More of a B-side vs a B-side.

Forza Juve on June 14, 2010 at 2:37 am

They’ll want to end first to avoid the 1st place team from the England, USA, Algeria, and Slovenia group

joshi on June 14, 2010 at 11:13 am

From this showing, none of that group should hold any fears for Germany. England are capable of being tactically naive; USA are a technically weaker squad.

Víctor on June 14, 2010 at 12:57 am

I agree, while Germany was indeed great in this game, let’s not forget that it was a game against Australia that is relatively weak and that does not have the courage that other teams do. (After the 2-0 they surely gave up)

I do not deny that Germany is a good team, but I wonder if, this year, they are really at the level of Brazil, Spain, Portugal, Italy or Netherlands. Let’s see how they perform against Ghana and Serbia that look stronger than Australia…

Qwe on June 14, 2010 at 3:07 am

How many times have Germany looked only “good” while going deep into the competition…

Víctor on June 14, 2010 at 5:43 am

Germany always go deep into the competition… that’s for sure. However, they lack something (be it skill, versatility, dunno) to win the World Cup. México 1986 was a great World Cup of them, but they went against Maradona’s Argentina and they lost, but they were good. In Italy 1990 they won, that was totally deserved. However, after that, they have been lacking that ’something’.

In United States 1994 they got defeated against Bulgaria, which was a big surprise, indeed. In France 1998 they were a bit lucky to get into Quarter Finals. México played well against them, Germany was trailing 1-0, but Mexico’s distractions let Germany win 2-1. After that, Croatia defeated them in Quarter Finals, 3-0.

Korea/Japan 2002, yes they got into the final. After defeating Paraguay, United States and Korea Republic. When they faced Brazil, they just couldn’t. In Germany 2006, they barely defeated Argentina. It had to be on penalties, and after that, they were history. Italy sent them off in Semifinals.

I’m expecting something similar to happen. Either Argentina, Italy or Brazil will stop Germany’s hopes of winning the cup. Fuck, even Netherlands or Spain could do that.

reteef on June 14, 2010 at 3:10 pm

I guess you could write a similar piece about most of the other competitors as well. There are only 4 teams in the semis and only one Champion every 4 years. When have Argentinia won the title the last time? What about Spain? Obviously Italy were also lacking something from 1982 until 2006. And I don’t remember them playing a great turnament until the semis. In the round of 16 they barely defeat Australia(!). In the semis they didn’t exactly thrash Germany, they only scored in the 119th and the 120th minutes of the game. Also, it had to be penalties in the finals for them to win the title, after this weird incident about Zidane being sent off.

So I don’t see the point in argueing about whether the progression of a particular team to the later stages of the turnament being deserved. You can’t pick your opponents, and if your up against a “weak” team in the later stages, it’s because some “stronger”, more respected teams were defeated by them before. And sometimes it’s a close thing, so you might only win in extra time or in the penalties.

Some more or less famous team will always destroy all the other teams’ hopes of winning the cup.

Cirdan on June 16, 2010 at 12:57 pm

I’ll agree about ‘94-’02, but not about ‘06. That side was great. They needed penalties vs Argentina, but Argentina was one of the best sides in the tournament, easily better than Portugal or even France in my book, and they lost in the last 2 minutes of extra time vs Italy in what was probably the best match of the tournament.

Sam on June 14, 2010 at 6:01 am

How is Germany not on the same level as Portugal, Italy and the Netherlands? They’re probably above their level. They beat all of the teams in almost every department, excluding Portugal’s defense. They possess a very balanced set of midfielders in Schweini, Khedira and Özil. On the wings they have to two hard-working yet creative and offensive wingers/supporting strikers. Sure, Klose might not be the best striker in the WC2010 but the fact that he’s scored 11 goals in two WC + one WC game says something about his goalscoring in the Germany shirt.

hwk on June 14, 2010 at 9:10 am

Of course Germany is not as good as Spain or Brazil (and all teams are vincible). Netherlands and Portugal? we will see.
But take a look at the teams that have played so far. France? England? both very weak. What were they doing during the last weeks? Argentina was good. Everybody talked about Maradona being and idiot and Capello the opposite and what happend? In Germany a lot of people said “Loew is useless” etc.
Of course the Netherlands, Spain and Brazil will play great football, but the World Cup started yesterday with a 4:0 victory of Germany.

Víctor on June 14, 2010 at 2:28 pm

I never said that they weren’t, but I wonder if they really are… but, now that I think if it, yes, you can scratch Portugal from that list.

France and England, though, I agree that they aren’t strong this year. And if they face Germany, Germany will win against them.

NiWa on June 14, 2010 at 12:59 am

typo: Arne Freidrich (should be Friedrich)
also, image caption reads “Germany’s pressing from the front often left Ozil (in red) in space” – I think you meant Australia, given the paragraph headlines, choice of colors, and formation.

Excellent analysis, well worth checking in for ;=)

Could add that Löw spoke freely about his tactics after the game with the media. He put emphasis on his game plan to play lots of long, flat, horizontal passes in order to slice open the defence where possible.
Here’s a source in English: http://uk.reuters.com/article/idUKLDE65C0Q320100613

And personally, I’d just want to say I was really happy to see Müller start, and it is hard not to rave about his performance. I know Özil is the talk of the tournament, but if you focus your look towards Müller you’ll see he just did about everything one can do right that game (except maybe for missing his first big chance after Özil set him up). Having Lahm behind him didn’t hurt of course…

In the very end, defending in football is about forcing the opposition to make their worst players have the ball in the place you want rather than anything. And when Australia let the German focus play freely in extremely risky areas, they where inmediately punished as predictable. Italians would say “peccato”, and they would have the point; it is unforgivable to give the opposition’s playmaker any kind of freedom as Australia did today (yesterday, sorry ^^). I’d have liked to see a little bit more of Marko Marin in the match, for what I’ve seen of him in other games looks really interesting…

Anyway, this is a funny, young and barely-German-looking squad in many aspects. Let’s see how they do against stronger teams – but they look good anyway. In fact, the team that looked better so far…

penpen on June 14, 2010 at 1:10 am

This is off-topic, but will a match analysis of the South Korea-Greece game be posted any time soon?

EDIT: nevermind, found the answer in the Argentina match comments thread.

Cris on June 14, 2010 at 1:16 am

Germany will not have the kind of freedom and space against Ghana, Serbia or any other team going forward in this tournament. The Argentina friendly in May was a good example of how to stop Oezil and stifle Germany’s fluid game. What’s more, unlike Australia, Serbia and Ghana have much better attacks to test Germany’s fragile defense.

Germany is a work in progress though and it is still early in their development so they will struggle against more disciplined sides. But they surely deserve credit for a magnificent performances. As a German supporter, there is a lot to look forward to with the up and coming generation of young talent.

Disappointed Aussie on June 14, 2010 at 1:18 am

Long time reader, first time poster. ZM – you’ve got a top top tactics site.

The Australia manager’s tactics were unbearable – I’m not sure how he could’ve made the Socceroos look any worse.
- Repeated foot-races between pacy German forwards and slow Australian defenders should’ve hinted to a problem, and seen some adjustment early
- Lahm was always going to get forward, so it’s unclear why our best Engine (Emerton) was stationed there, considering their LB was never going to get forward on the overlap
- Tim Cahill, potentially our best attacking weapon, was neutralised by the manager’s position (as opposed to the German defenders)

Disappointed Aussie

Skyler on June 14, 2010 at 1:19 am

I think you went out of your way to qualify this game as Australia playing poorly instead of Germany playing brilliantly – only begrudgingly and passively admitting that Germany indeed has some individual skill and team wide tactical understanding that rivals any of the serious contenders in this tournament.

Same story, different year. Pains are made to belittle the Germans, yet they always make it to the semifinals.

I love this site and its previews and reviews aren’t matched, but this was disappointing.

Hans Reitner on June 14, 2010 at 1:30 am

Totally agreed, no anglo-phone media outlet acknowledges the worth of Germany, it seems it always has to be the opponent having to play poor and not Germany getting things right.

shingai on June 14, 2010 at 2:12 am

Why is it necessary? Results speak for themselves – 3 World Cup victories, 6 Championship game appearances to England’s 1

Filip on June 14, 2010 at 2:47 am

Don’t know what u fellas are talking about. Z went out of the way to mention how quality Germans really were. He just added that Aussie tactics played into their hands. Gentlemen please, read the article again. Still, as a Serb, I am quakin in my shoes for Friday. Die Mannschaft is formidable indeed.

Steve on June 14, 2010 at 7:12 am

I totally disagree – this website is surely about critiquing the tactical choices implemented by both teams and clearly the Aussies basically shot themselves in the foot. If you want a website that purely focuses on how great your or any other team is, go to the the sun’s website or bild. This article looks at the tactical reasons why Germany won, not just that they were the better team.

Mukanya on June 14, 2010 at 8:36 am

How about Germany’s tactics, surely they also deserved some in depth analysis

“Firstly, the Germans were fantastic. The technical quality of individuals was remarkable – almost every outfield player comfortable on the ball. Bastian Schweinsteiger and Sami Khedira passed the ball quickly and intelligently from the centre of midfield, whilst the timing of Lukas Podolski and Thomas Muller’s runs was exceptional. Philip Lahm provided a constant outlet on the right-hand side and Miroslav Klose’s movement upfront dragged the two Australian centre-backs around all game. Most impressive of all was Mesut Ozil, who picked up the ball in a variety of positions, but invariably ended up playing it into a dangerous area.”

“Only begrudgingly and passively admitting that Germany indeed has some individual skill…pains are made to belittle the Germans”

Are you taking the piss?

Ally on June 14, 2010 at 12:12 pm

Hah, nice comeback. I was going to say the say thing. I think, as usual, you were very balanced and realy accurate.

However, I think that a part of the Australain tactical plan you didn’t touch on was the constant professional fouling and frequent attempts to injure players they couldn’t cope with. Can’t help but feel Cahill was made a scapegoat for his more cynical teamates indiscretions, particularly Grella, Moore and Neil.

Ben on June 14, 2010 at 12:30 pm

Oh poor Germany, here’s a tissue!
The opposition made you look better than what you were, yes you played well but don’t think you’re going to win the whole thing.

Anonymous on June 14, 2010 at 2:41 am

In saying that. I have never ever ever seen Australia defend so badly. We have played a fair few friendlies against higher level sides and this was the worst display I have ever seen them play. The tactics used by the coach DID make An excellent Germany seen godly.

To be honest, I feel the article did state that Germany were fantastic and it wasn’t “begrudgingly and passively”.

It was one of the most frustrating games I have ever seen and it was plain to see where the Australian tactics were flawed. Hardly worth staying up till 6am…

xl on June 14, 2010 at 10:57 am

Did you read the same article as i did? For me the article felt quite enthusiastic about Germanys performance. It also stated that the Aussies left far to much room for Özil & Co and that this will not happen against stronger teams – wich is absolutely true. Argentina, Spain, Brazil, Italy or the Netherlands will be a totally different game and i´m really curious how this young team is gonna hold up against one of those big names.

Hans Reitner on June 14, 2010 at 1:26 am

What about the tactics of Germany? Why is that Germany are always sidelined and questioned? You don’t reach 7 finals and win 3 of them by being lucky or just hardworking, you need good tactics as well, and no one is praising Jogi Loew for his sterling work. He displayed his tactical acumen vs Russia, twice (first game he was caught out in the second half, second game he bossed Hiddink), and he has now blistered in the World Cup.

What he has done right, effectively utilised the versatility of Lahm who has good production and essentially makes Muller tuck in and act as a second striker.

He also adjusted the team ethos, Australia packed the middle, then Germany will go outside and then come inside. After the first goal, put his wide players more inside so they constricted Australia and prevented them attacking.

Yes Australia were very poor, but make no mistake, Germany were always going to win, they will qualify. They also have a clear identity and style of what they want to do, fast football with few touches and looking for runners, no matter where on the pitch they are. Maybe you should do an article praising Germany instead of bemoaning the opposition, you never questioned England, so why question Germany??

Víctor on June 14, 2010 at 1:31 am

Germany is a good team, there’s no denying that… but, this time around, they aren’t that good either. In the games against Russia, I watched the second one and, truth be told, the referee’s mistakes helped Germany to avoid ending in second place. Sure, no one can tell if Russia would have won against Germany if the referee didn’t commit those mistakes; however, it makes you wonder.

Don’t get me wrong, though… is true that Germany is very solid when it comes to World Cups… since 1986 they always make it, at least, to Quarter Finals… that’s quality football and discipline right there. However, I don’t see them as a strong candidate to win this World Cup… I think that they make it to Quarter Finals, or Semifinals at best.

Hans Reitner on June 14, 2010 at 1:56 am

Get your facts right, since 1954, Germany have only been stopped in the second round once, the rest they go deep into the tournaments, second most successful team after Brazil in tournaments, and third after Brazil and Italy for wins, this is not done by any old team.

In English language media, Germany never have the players and hence can never do well, yet with their worst team in history, they got to the final in 2002, with a new style of play they finished 3rd in 2006, so why can’t they do something extraordinary again? Do you think England can beat this Germany? I can only see Brazil beating them, the rest, Germany should not be scared, not even in Spain.

Víctor on June 14, 2010 at 3:02 am

I mentioned 1986 because since that World Cup there is a Round of 16 phase… before that, the format of the tournament was always changing. Since 1986 the format has been pretty much the same… Group Stage, Round of 16, Quarter Finals, Semifinals, Final… the only thing that has changed since then is the number of groups… 6 (from 1986 to 1994) and 8 (1998 to today)…

No, I don’t think that England can beat Germany… England seems kind of lost in their game. However, teams like Brazil, Italy, Netherlands and perhaps Spain will make their game very very difficult. Specially Italy.

Ben on June 14, 2010 at 12:34 pm

Did you actually read the article or do you need a german translation? Whinging kraut.

icebreaker on June 14, 2010 at 6:25 pm

Wow, please keep it civil. One thing I like about this website so much is that this is place where you can read about and have a tactical discussion without all that negative/prejudiced stuff.

BTW. I thought that the analyisis was absolutely spot on and not biased against Germany and Germany was given a lot of credit.

Australia needed a target man sort of striker from the start. Then play deep as you say and play long to whoever was up front. Get a couple of midfield runners – Cahill and Garcia would be the obvious ones – and see what happens.

In reality though I don’t think they are good enough even with better tactics to have got anything from tonights game. The team looked too slow throughout. They passed it around well enough but other than that looked extremely poor.

Be interesting to see what happens when better sides play Germany, their defence never got tested and it could be troubled by small ‘nippy’ forwards. Also the Australians best chance came from a corner early in the game which caused chaos in the box. They never really got balls into the area after that so it’s hard to judge, but that seemed like a slight weakness at the back.

Having said all that, they did really look exciting going forward, and that can only be a good thing for the tournament as a whole.

jupiter53 on June 14, 2010 at 1:53 am

The theory in our house is that Pim thought it was the last warm up match. He tested a defensive approach that he hadn’t previously used and now knows our central defence is too old and slow and that Lucas Neill is not Franco Baresi. He also now knows that Grella is actually not going to come good for this tournament.

He’s also wondering if he can get his money back for the “extract of Zidane” he administered to Timmy Cahill – unfortunately it gave him the red mist leading to send-off rather than transcendent skill.

Disappointed Aussie on June 14, 2010 at 2:46 am

That is gold.

Rumour has it that Pim had an inkling about the pace of his central defence from the US friendly. I’m not sure he’s convinced about their lack of pace yet. Maybe another high defensive line and one more friendly (Ghana) to make sure. And if it’s still the case, he’ll just decide it’s too hard tactically and play a farewell match (Serbia). If only this wasn’t so painfully true.

Dominic on June 14, 2010 at 2:05 am

No mention of Wilkshere and Neill? It was tough to get a handle on Australia tactically. It seem to me that when Australia got possession of the ball Wilkshere would occupy a right midfield spot and Neill would move to the right of a 3 man backline with Moore in the middle and Chipperfield in a D LC role. It was very odd to me and made it easy for Germany to counter against an out of sorts Australia. I guess Pim’s reasoning was to get an extra man into midfield when he had the ball but it was awful. Did anyone else see this transformed back three when Australia had the ball?

EDIT: I should say in the second half when Australia was pushing for a goal Chipperfield played more traditional and pushed forward leaving Moore and Neill as the center backs, but in the first half especially I saw this Neill/Wilkshere trend.

Also the balance of this Germany is great regarding the wingers and fullbacks. The left side has a forward in Podolski who doesn’t care too much about tracking back and a fullback in Badstuber who knows his job is to clamp down that side (even though he delightfully set up the final goal). The right side has Muller who I simply love. He has an amazing work rate, good pace, technically good and can set up as well as finish goals. He was my man of the match. As a winger he lets the fullback have free license and with Lahm you have one of the best offensive fullbacks in the world. They really complement each other well.

Skyler on June 14, 2010 at 2:16 am

The most impressive part of their performance was the balance between their two Winger / Fullback combos, perfectly stated.

Most wanted Marcell Jansen at LB, but he would have gone forward much too often and cluttered Podolski, who needs space to operate. Speaking of Lukas, this was one of the most complete matches for the national team he’s had: vision, passing, shooting, movement on and off the ball and hard work on defense. Badstuber’s defensive tendencies and nature allowed Germany to roll into a three man defense when Lahm pressed forward, allowing for the numbers in the offensive third that this “Spanish” style needs.

Thomas Mueller covered incredible amounts of space. The ESPN game track has a heat map, and his signature was traced from touchline to touchline, not just box to box. He linked exceptionally with Oezil, and the main objection to putting him at the right wing: a lack of quality crosses certainly didn’t apply for this game.

Cris on June 14, 2010 at 4:36 am

No one wanted Jansen at LB, they wanted him at LM/LW, where he is much better. Everyone has acknowledged by now, Jansen included, that LB is not his best position. Badstuber is no LB either and remains a weakpoint. He just wasn’t challenged in today’s game.

bobeto on June 14, 2010 at 2:18 am

Zonal Marking

Germany play Serbia next, not Ghana. If Raddy Antic keeps his insane 4-4-2, Ozil could have a lot of fun…

Hans Reitner and Skyler

I think you’re being a bit harsh on ZM. Certainly most cliche-driven English tv commentators can be expected to be amazed at Germany playing with flair, but ZM’s analysis seems to be the consensus view among tactical analysis that I respect. Germany were fantastic and forced Australian errors. But Australia didn’t help themselves in the decision they made BEFORE the game. This was among the points I think ZM was making. And good as Germany were tonight, you can’t credit them for that.

Rafa Honigstein on the Guardian World Cup podcast made similar points, and downplayed some of the effusive praise heading Germany’s way, emphasising the fact that Australia weren’t the team to expose the defensive weaknesses that he thinks Germany have.

As a Frenchman, I was very impressed, especially by Muller. Ozil we have all seen, but Muller looked so much better out wide than the guy who struggled at times in the Champions League on occasion for Bayern. Perhaps that’s down to a lower quality opposition, but playing out wide drew a fantastic performance. The fact that Podolski and Muller – the wide men – provided assists for each-others goals could be something of great significance as this tournament, and the German team, progresses.

Roberticus on June 14, 2010 at 2:38 am

ZM,

A Brazilian journalist I know of has praised Germany’s movement, saying that their interpretation of 4-2-3-1 was just about perfect as one could want from a team playing this system; quick and incisive in wide areas and with deft synchronisation between the advanced midfield trio. He also wonders why on earth Brazilian coaches (especially domestically-based ones) flounder when they have recently attempted to ‘import’ this system. Cecconi (the journo in question) pointed to the fact that in Schweinsteiger and especially Khedira, Germany had a double pivot who were very adept on the ball, with one of them licensed to break forward.

Also, in light of the Italy-Paraguay clash I’ve done a quick analysis on a tactical adjustment made by Lippi (based on what Gazzetta dello Sport have been reporting).

regards

Euler on June 14, 2010 at 3:34 am

Schweinsteiger and Khedira were very impressive and central to the way Germany was able to control space in the center of the pitch. Both are very technically skilled players who opened up dimensions of play that most traditional holding players or “destroyers” cannot.

Schweinsteiger offers defensive solidity but is also strong on the ball. Khedira’s movement off the ball into space and his runs were excellent, the kind that only come from a strong feeling for the game as a whole. These qualities of the two deep players were what helped allow Ozil to not only freely move into an advanced position but to also move to the wing without conceding the middle of the pitch.

Having not just one – but two holding players with skill sets that are so varied opens up very different possibilities that are difficult for the opposition to address. Part of why pressing in the modern game is so effective is because holding players are often so specialized that they are no longer strong in retaining possession once it’s acquired and don’t participate in the buildup of play.

Gustavo on June 14, 2010 at 4:36 am

Roberticus, I’m brazilian and I really like 4-2-3-1 system. I think it’s the most balanced one in today’s football, with the right players, of course.

But in Brazil, we have a problem that starts on the youth teams: youth coaches don’t try different things. They stay with the basics, 4-2-2-2, 4-4-2 diamond, 3-5-2, like every brazilian team. So, the wide players are either full-backs/wing-backs, or the forward who likes playing the channels (like Robinho). If the kid wants to be a midfielder, he needs to know to play centrally, period. If he can’t, he’s either backed down to full-back or shuffled up to forward/winger.

It sucks, I know, but that’s cultural: in Brazil, the midfield is actually on the middle of the pitch, vertical and horizontally. That’s why a 4-2-3-1 rarely works in brazilian teams, and is the motive for the quote that is a real cliche around here: “players need to go to Europe to learn about tactical discipline”. It’s really annoying, considering that Brazil has 5 World Cups (3 of them national-based) and 8 Inter-Continental/Club World Cups.

Gustavo on June 14, 2010 at 4:00 am

Couldn’t agree more, ZM. Great analysis.

Pim Verbeek did everything Germany needed to trash Australia. You can’t leave that much space to players like Özil, Müller and Podolski, specially with a slow partnership in the back. Alright, that we can “blame” this on the excellent game the germans had individually and the awful game some aussies had (Grella, Chipperfield, Culina), but what was Verbeek thinking when he put Tim Cahill as a striker? He did Germany a favour by neutralizing his best player, just like that. Cahill needs to come from behind, supporting the striker, like Podolski did on the first goal and Müller did on the third.

It was a great game of Germany though. The bad choices made by Verbeek and the loss of individual battles from the aussies can’t minimize what a great team/individual performance it was.

Cris on June 14, 2010 at 4:42 am

Speaking of the 4-2-3-1, it must be said that a big reason Germany eventually switched over was due to a player whom many say the team is not missing anymore, Michael Ballack. Anyways, very few, if any, Bundesliga clubs are using the 4-2-3-1 either. In fact, most still maintain traditional flat 4-4-2’s or diamond formations, Bremen being a notable exception. Most of the young players coming up have familiarized themselves with the system by playing in it at the youth NT level. The U-17, U-19 and U-21s all used variations of this formation and have won several competitions doing so. That’s a big reason they have made such a seamless transition in such a quick period of time despite their relative inexperience with the senior NT.

NiWa on June 14, 2010 at 9:11 am

Bayern Munich is also an exception, with a fit Ribery & Robben, van Gaal’s system very much could be compared to a 4-2-3-1.

This essentially means that Badstuber, Lahm, Schweinsteiger, Müller, Klose (due to injuries, to a lesser degree) all played in that system successfully last season.

Same for Özil, Mertesacker, Marin, as you mentioned in the case of Bremen.

hwk on June 14, 2010 at 9:27 am

b***sh**

Bayern, Dortmund, Mainz, and Bremen are using 4-2-3-1 (and that are the ones that came to my mind in a second).
Yes, Leverkusen, Stuttgart, Hamburg playing flat 4-4-2. Schalke, Hoffenheim often a 4-3-3, Some switsch between 4-4-2 with diamond and 4-3-3.
I would say: the Bundesliga clubs play different systems.

AND using the same formation doesn’t results in playing the same style.

Calvin on June 14, 2010 at 4:58 am

ZM

What an excellent, penetrative analysis ! A joy to read indeed.

I completely agree with most of ZM has said though I have a slightly different take on the tactical aspects.

I am of the opinion that it is Germany who out-played Aussies tactically rather than the Oz’s tactics had played into the German’s game. In my opinion the most impressive part was the tactical game plan by Leow than the Germany’s play. As I had commented earlier, this Germany team has talents by bucket-ful and certainly the most exciting one since the 1980 European Cup winning team.

Ok, let’s talk about the game.

If you had observed, the tactics adopted by the Germans were quite different from the way they played in their friendly and qualifying matches. They had studied the Aussies and knew that they will play a pressing game and try to close down the CM, especially Bastian.

In their previous matches they played short passes and one-twos to take their opponents’ defences apart. But this they by-passed the centre midfield and launched lightning attacks via middle or on the right channel via Mueller. Also if you had noticed, they kept the ball in the defence and passed around among the defenders patiently while they waited for the offensive players made their runs and/or pulled Aussie defenders out of positions. What is note-worthy is the novel idea of using the defenders in dictating the tempo of the game and launch attacks. In particular I was impressed by the composure and technique displayed by Arne Freidrich. I also thought Lahm’s crosses were outstanding.

As such, the Aussies were completely taken by surprise and couldn’t cope with the tactics, the change of tempo, pace and the off the ball movements of the Germans. So I think people are being rather a bit harsh on Verbeek. This would have worked against many teams.

Packing up defence ala Inter might have worked and probably helpful considering their 2 slow CBs. But then such tactics would only succeed if you have right defensive players like Inter, who can read the game well and close down the space intelligently. In my opinion the Oz do not have such players.

Also, it is very difficult to play against Germany as they have a variety of players who pose offensive threat. So marking one or two players would not help.

The Sammi-Bastian CM combination is a rarity as both can attack, defend and unlock defences with passes. This was seen when the Aussies closed down Bastian but Germany were untroubled. But this allowed Sammi and Oezil to run riot.

It can very hard to defend when you are faced with the likes of Oezil, Mueller, Klose, Podolski, Bastian and Sammi all coming at you and making all sorts of off the ball runs. The only way to close them down is a massed defence but then this team could easily switch to one-touch football to unpick the defence like they did against Bosnia and Hungary.

I was also surprised with Klose, he was outstanding with his movements and combination play and this created endless problems for the Oz.

So I think not only that the team deserves praise, but Leow too should be complimented for coming up with the right tactics. As such, I am keen to see what kind of tactics Leow will adopt against Serbia and Ghana. The advantage that Loew has is that his Germany team is very versatile and can adopt to a wider variety of tactics due to the talent they have.

NiWa on June 14, 2010 at 9:23 am

Yes tactics played a big part as well, as I tried to point out in my remarks regarding Löw earlier.

What must also be credited to Löw though was giving confidence to Klose & Podolski by hanging onto them after a bad & an abysmal season. I hope Soldo (Podolski’s club coach) is watching and will reconsider where to play him best.

Fit Klose is dangerous – he’s played very well in 4-4-2 in the past and with Poldi, Özil, Müller in a 4-2-3-1, these are three players that can all convert when given space.

Regarding Arne Friedrich, I’d like to add that Schweinsteiger did well here too – there was a period in the first half where Australia was marking everyone in Germany’s midfield well, and the defence seemed to be a bit struggling to find a good opening pass. Schweinsteiger trailed back to lose his man and offer himself as a 5th player in the defensive line to help make space and offer options.

Calvin on June 14, 2010 at 10:12 am

NiWa

Yes, indeed I was very surprised to see Klose being so mobile and making intelligent moves and taking part in link up play. He was absymal for Bayern and in Germany’s previous matches. I am beginning to wonder what went wrong at Bayern. Had Klose been his usual self, Bayern would have given Inter a tougher match at the CL final.

I agree with you on Schweinsteiger too. He was very intelligent in pulling away Aussie defenders and changing his game depending on the situation.It could have been a difficult day for his since he was marked by 2 Australians who were snapping at his heels at evening.

On a another topic, while Cahill’s red card was harsh, but I believe it was bacause the challenge was from behind and studs up. Such tackle could cripple a player and I think it would send a strong message for other players from committing similar faults.

Rohan on June 14, 2010 at 11:51 am

Watch again, Cahill’s studs were never up. Anyway well played Germany.

Daniel on June 14, 2010 at 9:53 am

Great analysis!
I think the reason for Australia’s pressing tactic were the last German performances against deep standing defences. They wanted to give Germany not as much possession as they had in the games against Hungary and Bosnia where they scored 7 goals.

It was a try, but it did not work.

vincent on June 14, 2010 at 5:22 am

off topic: is it just me or is the referee a bit harsh in giving cards to australian players?

xl on June 14, 2010 at 11:48 am

I agree – the red card was too much (even the german tv commentators said it wasn´t red worthy)

joga on June 15, 2010 at 6:57 pm

The red card was too harsh but other than that it was justified. As Germany began dominating they grew increasingly frustrated and vented by complaining and yelling a lot and committing some unnecessary fouls. It’s not professional behavior and doesn’t help you in scoring so they need to step down on that. It’s just risky for player’s health. I think that’s why Cahill got that red card unjustifiably: Guilty by association

clayton on June 14, 2010 at 5:23 am

As an Aussie fan, it was kinda strange seeing the Aussies take a high line and try to press from the front.

I guess we were worried about the German team`s aerial ability. As well as being slow, our centrebacks aren`t great shakes in the air either.

I would like to know, what do You think of Miro Klose’s performance, ZW?

John Brown on June 14, 2010 at 5:53 am

At first i thought Skyler and Reitner were being too harsh on ZM with this analysis. But then i compared this to the England match which i admit i previously did not read, but after doing so i have to say they do have a point. In the conclusion u start by saying:-
“England rarely start well in major tournaments, and the result was not entirely unpredictable. We should avoid going overboard, but the game presented so many problems for Capello – Milner’s indiscipline, King’s fitness worries, Carragher’s lack of pace, Green’s confidence after his mistake, Heskey’s wastefulness…”.
One has to admit that this sounds like what an England apologist or sympathizer would say, their historic failures and/or injury problems etc. have nothing to do with their TACTICS on the night, which is what should be analyzed.
In other words, if this were left out….or on the other hand u mentioned Germany’s historic success in their first group match, i would say this was totally fair, but since you did not I agree that at the very least there was some “hey, England’s poor performance and resulting disappointing draw doesnt mean much”. While in contrast you did go in great detail in questioning Germany good performance and result…

NiWa on June 14, 2010 at 9:30 am

But that is not a testament to Germany’s skills, rather faulty regarding England ;=)

I think he did hit his analysis regarding the game very well, and he is far from playing down Germany, read the conclusion again closely.

You just have to keep in mind what he chose for emphasis in this article (Australia’s pressing system failing). And I’d say that was a good pick, as it was probably the most unexpected to happen in this game tactically – Australia with a high defensive line against Germany?

It really is quite astonishing that anyone can interpret a sentence like “England rarely start well in major tournaments, and the result was not entirely unpredictable. We should avoid going overboard, but the game presented so many problems for Capello – Milner’s indiscipline, King’s fitness worries, Carragher’s lack of pace, Green’s confidence after his mistake, Heskey’s wastefulness” as being biased towards England

Mef on June 14, 2010 at 5:55 am

The one who is responsible for Germany’s tactics is actually not Jogi Löw but head scout Urs Siegenthaler.
His job is to analyze the opponent and then give Löw and the players all the tactical information they need.
He has done splendid work for Germany, especially during the last Euro where he was the one who thought of switching from 4-4-2 to 4-5-1 against Portugal which completely neutralized their attacking game.

hwk on June 14, 2010 at 10:32 am

“give Löw and the players all the tactical information they need”

like any other manager Loew has people like this. Four years ago, Klinsmann was Bundestrainer, everybody said: Klinsmann is the motivator and Löw the tactician.

Now this. Of course Loew is responsible for the tactics and Siegenthaler is an important person when it comes to analysing the opponent. Siegenthaler is not the one who sais: Schweinsteiger has to play like this, and Özil like that.

Whatever Australia had in mind, it didn’t work out. I’ve never seen a pressing team exercising so little immediate pressure on the centre-backs. Having the defense so high up the pitch was a recipe for disaster against fast German midfielders with exceptional off-ball movements.

I guess only the next matches can tell whether it was us being strong or Australia getting it all wrong. (I tend to think the latter though). Serbia and Ghana will watch this match over and over again and will for sure not repeat the Australian mistakes.

That being said, I haven’t seen any other team yet in which every player knows what he’s got to do at any given moment the way we displayed it. This strength should help us during the next two, three matches until we start to encounter the stronger teams.

Daniel H on June 14, 2010 at 7:54 am

What was very impressive about Germany (surprised nothing on it in the article) was the way Ozil moved wide into the inside right channel with Muller coming off the flank as well to make space for Lahm, thus overloading that flank and creating a natural triangle to use with Khedira moving into the attacking midfield space Ozil had vacated to offer another threat through there and Podolski moving off the left flank to get the ball on the far side of the penalty area from the cross. It was clearly something worked on pre-game and difficult to handle given the speed of passing and movement. That right flank against Brazil or England’s left would be a fascinating match up.

Ozil’s movement was excellent – too often I feel attacking midfielders are a bit static and easy for the destroyers to pick up but his movement right across the line and back deep as well made it impossible.

However I worry they might be a bit open against better teams – only 1 real holder who isn’t a holder normally and the right back always moving up. Neither is their defence the best and Australia moved the ball into the attacking third with relative ease. Could see some high scoring games with Germany later on.

NiWa on June 14, 2010 at 9:40 am

Triangles – Müller and Lahm got that drilled in HARD by van Gaal at the start of the Bundesliga season. They pretty much had to practicee it for 2 months straight (to get into automatism mode).

And while I am not as familiar with Schaaf’s training methods, I think it is likely that he did a similar thing with Özil and Marin at some point ;=)

Müller’s & Özil’s flexibility does help a lot here. Özil did play wide positions a lot, as did Müller play the central position behind the striker for the majority of Munich’s season. Both have creativity and support each other by excellent movement, creating space.

Tosin on June 14, 2010 at 7:55 am

ZM, I agree with your points on the game but I just wanted to point out that Klose is not pacey. Like Berbatov, he has good movement and positioning, but I wouldn’t put him in the pacey bracket. Just a little correction. Fine job on the site in general. I found this site a week ago and I have already referred it to over 10 people cos it’s that good.

Actually, Klose is quick. I think it was at the beginning of the 2008/2009 season, when I read an article about the Bayern preparation for the season. Back then Klose was the quickest player in the entire Bayern squad.

Jubatus on June 14, 2010 at 8:41 am

I was really surprised by Khedira. Took for granted that a 23 year old who has to replace Big Ballack with such short notice would be a bit nervous and insecure in a World Cup debut. However you could sense almost the opposite already during the national anthems. His extremely offensive and well timed runs throughout the game from his 2 position in a 4-2-3-1 came as a surprise. Should we take it that Bastian is their main defensive midfielder nowadays? That’s quite an impressive step for a 25 year old former winger. Germany looks very interesting both tactically and player wise. Germany-Ghana for the top spot (not taking anything for granted here or anything) will be a great one.

What’s really strange is that just last October, this Australian team kept the Netherlands scoreless by defending very deep and not pressing. Having watched every game under Verbeek in the last two and a half years, I really wasn’t prepared for us doing the opposite and thought the high line against USA eight days ago was just a one-off experiment. Besides being really bad, it was strange from Verbeek today. It’s frustrating because a lot of fans really didn’t rate him tactically in qualifying either, but he’s gotten worse when it’s most important!

A better balance would have been a deep line, a real striker in Kennedy up front and Cahill in midfield to get three central midfielders on German’s three.

I think the biggest doubt about Germany coming out of this game when it comes to wondering how they will fare against tougher teams isn’t their attacking play but their defence, which wasn’t tested much but as an Oz I felt as if it was easier than expected to threaten on the rare occasions we did. Going forward, Germany wouldn’t have been quite as devastating if Australia sat deep and played more intelligently, like Finland did in October, but this German performance was so much more vibrant and the team setup was so much better balanced and effective than against Finland in fairness. Hope they can keep it up.

Lena on June 14, 2010 at 9:20 am

Even as a partisan german, while watching the game, I found myself a couple of times wondering, why on earth the Aussies would play like they did. They played tactically and personally awful. And were lucky to only got 4 goals, they were out there like sheep for slaughter. Remembering the squad from last world cup, I could not believe it. It looked like the mother of all defenses was just a hoax. Maybe their coach should have read your analysis of the atypical german team. His old men pressing was a joke.

And – that I miss a little bit in your analysis – as the Aussies were freely giving away, the Germans were more then prepared to take it. It was a delight to watch Özil, Müller, Lahm, piercing through as they wanted. Fast passing, playing knots into their opponents legs, even when there was no room for it. The individual potential of this team – not only for this cup – is so enormous, that I cannot wait to see Löw’s game plan for Serbia and Ghana. Be prepared for some tactical changes.

On the other hand: As the early performers normally get killed latest in the quarter finals, I would have no problem with one bad game…

jupiter53 on June 14, 2010 at 9:22 am

Now the wounds are not quite as raw I would like to give some Australian credit to the Germans.

That was the most impressive team performance so far. The most impressive individually has been Messi but the Argentineans as a team were a worry defensively.

I note some of the previous posters have expressed concern about possible German defensive frailties- and they were certainly not properly tested today. However the offensive passing and movement was stunning, and I think they will give everyone problems.

Not only was it effective, it was a pleasure [although painful] to watch. I think they are likely to embarrass more than just the Australians.

BaFANa on June 14, 2010 at 9:30 am

I was at the Aussie friendlies against Denmark and USA, so eagerly anticipated this match. It was interesting to see Australia change their tactics so much! For both warm-ups they started the same teams, in the same formations, while playing marginally higher up the field against the USA.
Against Denmark their defence was outstanding in limiting the Danish threat, but against USA they were punished by virtue of being slow and technically poor, meaning they gave the ball away in dangerous areas and were slow to recover, especially the defence having to defend a bigger area behind themselves.
Going forward their only threat appeared to be from set pieces, and especially from Kennedy. Strange then that he was dropped.

So Verbeek didn’t learn from these lessons, and decided to play even higher up the field with a less compact midfield (because of them “pressuring” the mobile German midfield), as well as removing his main attacking threat, meaning all the German players had more freedom to attack.

That said, I am excited about this German team. Functional and effective sure, but technically gifted and with outstanding movement, none more so than the wonderful Oezil. Can’t wait for the Ghana match!

Rajesh on June 14, 2010 at 10:08 am

It was good to see Germany playing. But with all respects to Germany, Australian performance was so poor, the worst so far in the tournament. Everything looked so poor from their side.

My two pence – considering how old and slow Moore and Neill are, I find it pretty suicidal to play a high line. Seems the coach was trying to force an ideal through rather than think about playing to his actual players strengths.

I think he was right to go with Cahill up front (kind of lone), but really and of course in hindsight, it would’ve made sense to play an aggressive but deep 4-5-1, and try and counter and get Cahill on the ball either in the box, or through headers, and perhaps try and scrape goals through set plays. Indeed their best chance came through a Cahill header and the knockdown was cleared by Lahm/Neuer.

Lesser teams shouldn’t be afraid of going for a draw against the “top” seed. Compared to the rivals for second spot, 1 point against the top seed can make a huge difference.

The high line was crazy – in fact there are so many Germans who can exploit this – Ozil, Marin, Cacau, etc…

Yes, I thought Cahill upfront alone would have been a decent idea too.

Ian on June 14, 2010 at 10:52 am

Germany were a joy to watch, regardless of how the Australians played into their hands. Their first touch, speed of passing and movement were better than everyone else so far, regardless of the oppositions quality.

I believe they’ve been using the Jabulani ball in the Bundesliga for the second half of the season too. I thought it told. The long swtich passes across the pitch which have so often bounced over the head of players were regularly trapped by Lahm (who didn’t put a foot wrong all game), Podolski, Müller, etc.

Özil made a great impression once he got that silly dive out of his system. Also thought it was noticeable that Khedira (supposedly the more defensive CM) got into the box on numerous occasions whilst Schweinstager remained outside (and generally played quite deep). Either way both were impressive.

Larry Y on June 14, 2010 at 3:41 pm

Are most soccer balls dimpled now? Or is that only Adidas? Anyway, Major League Soccer (MLS) also uses the ball.

G.G77 on June 14, 2010 at 11:53 am

Germany was really brilliant yesterday,they played good attacking football with two great central midfielders,i was also impressed by their passing game.I think they are one of the favourites but their defence is not so good and i would like to see the way they react when under pressure

xl on June 14, 2010 at 12:30 pm

Great analysis, much more insights and surely less biased than most coverage in the german press / media. Despite the fact that some fellow germans seem to have preferred a solitary praising of the germans qualitys, i think your article exactly nailed it. Thanks and keep up the good work!

Matt on June 14, 2010 at 2:51 pm

Your missing a key ingredient – the Germans know how to play with this World Cup ball. And the ball knows how to play with them – it fits their style.

There were few over the top passes by the Germans – all those through balls were on the ground into space behind the high Australian back line. The Germans crossed as if they were taking a low shot – the only way to keep this ball on a semi-predictable trajectory.

juwie on June 15, 2010 at 9:15 am

Untill now the Bundesliga hasn’t got an official ball (also not Jabulani). Each team played with balls of his supplier. There was also a discussion that goalies had to handle another ball each match.

icebreaker on June 14, 2010 at 6:31 pm

Just wanted to thank ZM for all the hard work and insight!!Your website is terrific and much better than what most pundits in the German media produce.

Kudos

maximilian on June 14, 2010 at 10:06 pm

next match is serbia!

Daniel N. on June 15, 2010 at 8:28 am

The Australian’s tactics were off but let’s not forget how ‘on’ Germany’s tactics and players were. I don’t think another system would really have altered the outcome which is why I disagree about the headline of this article. I’m already aware of the German bias from any English-Language based media outlet, including this otherwise excellent blog. Bundesliga clubs and players rarely get mentioned and matches never analyzed during the regular season. Even for the team of the year, there was one acknowledgment. Having said that it’s nothing new. Germany will always be disliked for whatever informed or ignorant reasons.

On to the match, Australia is not a bad side. They kept a very disciplined Denmark side at bay and even managed to score on them in one of the matches leading up to the tournament. They also, I think it was mentioned above had a fine display against the Dutch last year. The result came down to how strong Germany played. Individual talent aside, they clicked and tactically they are versatile as they have shown in matches before the tournament as well (Bosnia for instance where they were faced with a more tactically stronger side and found a way back)

Harshad Inamdar on June 18, 2010 at 6:23 am

I think the article is spot on. Holger Badstuber is average playing at left back, and he was thoroughly exposed defensively in Bayern Munich’s Champions League match against Manchester United. His attacking capabilities are also suspect, with him rarely trying to get forward and cross the ball to Klose and Gomez against Inter, even when Inter were sitting back and allowing him space to run into on the flank. I do not mean to say that he is a bad player, he’s just not a natural left back and does not offer the width and speed on the flank when needed. All he’s going to do is pass sideways into the centre which won’t help if the opposition is sitting deep. Marcell Jansen would be a better player at left-back. Also, Germany’s centre backs were rarely tested, but they looked shaky at the beginning of the game at the throw-in right up the field, and fast, physical forwards will get the better of them. That said, I’d love to see Germany go atleast to the semi-finals. Maradona is too arrogant, and he’s a cheat, I really don’t want to see his smug face after an Argentina win..